Monday, January 23, 2006

My Writings on Polyamory Have Been Cited on Two Other Sites

I found from search engines that my writings have been cited and reposted on the following sites:

Poly Matchmaker

Marriage Watch Blog

The latter is particularly interesting. It's a blog that is a compendium of models of alternative marriage from various countries. I've been cited as the voice of alternative forms of marriage in Israel. Actually, it's not that big a compliment. So far I seem to be the only voice calling for the revision of the institution of marriage in Israel

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Making the Case for Female Bisexuality and Polyamory, Particularly in a Communal Setting

BiSexual and Polyamorous is how women would develop naturally without societal constraint. BiPoly is how women will be in a peaceful, free society that does not presume to tell women how to express our natural sexuality, the sexuality we are born with and that which we express when we are little girls and fall in love with both males and females who become our lifelong imagos.

The case for Bisexuality and Polyamory as the norm of females can be summed up in this magnificently accurate and beautiful description by Lord Byron: "Man's love is of man's life a thing apart; 'tis woman's whole existence."

Though the majority of women are sexually attracted to men and find them exciting, few are profoundly satisfied by men emotionally after the first months of courtship during which men behave as though they are capable of the type of self-disclosure and communication that women find so natural. In fact, the vast majority men cannot sustain this state of intense emotion and openness for very long.

Just as a woman is becoming emotionally attached to a man she thinks understands her uniquely, he becomes overwhelmed and frightened by the depth of emotion and pulls away to regain his composure.

The sexual response in women is connected to our emotional response. We cannot respond to a man sexually who has hurt us by disappointing us, even if we love him. If we love him and we are hurt we may submit to his overtures to have sex, but we do not really wish to be physically intimate with him and we come away feeling that we have been violated and that we betrayed ourselves by giving in. We feel out of control of our bodies and helpless. Women are all too often being put in the position of paying for keeping their men in their lives by "putting out" when they do not really wish to.

Men simply cannot love as women do. Men's brains are not "wired" to allow them to communicate and emote, or even to think and emote, as women's brains are. Men's lack of communication skills, relative to that of women, leaves us feeling abandoned and unloved.

With each new romance, we women think that we have finally found the one special man who can understand, only to be disappointed again. Eventually, these repeated disappointments lead to cynicism and wholly dysfunctional relationships.

Men find their most sustained support for their identity in that which they do, that which they accomplish. Women's primary satisfaction comes from their interpersonal relationships. A man shows a woman he loves her by bringing home the bacon. A woman demonstrates her love in shows of affection and in wanting to share her thoughts and feelings. Men are put off by the amounts of shows of affection that a woman finds reassuring. A man in a relationship is also generally bored and annoyed by a run-on litany fleeting of thoughts and emotions that the woman experienced during the day. Women are hurt when what they have to share is not appreciated. After all, sharing in this way is the way in which women friends show one another they care.

Though women are attracted to men in any number of ways and on any number of levels, when they really need to be understood they generally turn to other women.

Much of the talk that transpires between and among women centers on their common confusion and frustration with men. They try to analyze their men's behavior together and don't usually do a very good job. A good deal of women's conversations consists of wheel-spinning second guessing about men.

All too often men do not satisfy us sexually either. There is a basic biological parity between men and women. Unless this parity is painstakingly overcome our sexual encounters with men leave us emotionally as well as physically, even if we achieve orgasm.

A good deal of unhappiness among women would be obviated if we women found the love our very existence is dependent upon in one another.

We women can satisfy one another emotionally as men cannot satisfy us. The love and mutual understanding that exist between and among women in love far exceed that between men and women in love.

If women are to be happy and profoundly fulfilled we will have to recognize that we need to be more than just friends. To be complete, we need to be one another's lovers.

Much of the jealousy and competitiveness that exist between and among women is really desire. We have been taught not to desire one another, and society has taught us that it is forbidden to express that desire, so we experience those feelings negatively.

When women make themselves beautiful, do they not take other women's opinions of their looks into consideration no less than the opinions of men?

If we woman found the satisfaction of our profound need for love in one another's arms, we would be less dissatisfied with our men. We would not, in our emotional starvation, try to get more out of our men emotionally than they are capable of giving us. We would enjoy the sexual pleasure that they can give us, have and raise our babies with them, enjoy the special contribution they give as friends, share our opinions with them on important matters in order to get both the female and male perspective on things and work along side them as partners and comrades in our workplaces. We would be free to love them and receive as much love as they can give, but would not need them either financially or emotionally.

If the pressure to satisfy our every emotional and physical need was taken off men they would feel freer to give what they honestly can. They would not feel the need to protect themselves emotionally from us. We would not overwhelm them. We would not seem as needy, weak and dependent to them. We would not talk to them more than they can tolerate. They would come to respect us in a way that society does not presently provide the conditions for.

It is for the above reasons that I believe that Bisexuality and Polyamory are the norm and is the best possible state for women.

Note: I speak for women, not for men. It is not my place to decide if Bisexuality is the norm for men. I am not a man and do not presume to decide what is best for men. Men will have to grapple with their real needs and their cultural heritages and decide what is best for them. Men have done a lousy job of describing the sexuality that is appropriate for women. There is every reason to believe that women would do an equally lousy job if we were to presume to describe men's sexuality for them.

It is clear that Polyamory is the normal state for most men. That is the universal norm and need not be proven. Polyamory amongst men can be analyzed, but need not be proven. Only a small minority of men absolutely freely choose to be monogamous with one woman all their lives.

The following account is from a heterosexual, Polyamorous man who was involved in a Polyamorous quad relationship for some time. He was also a member of a Kibbutz for a period. He relates the following account of his experience, which I have edited with a very light hand to protect identities. The passage is reproduced here with his written permission:

"Regarding my former relationship with a poly group, my girlfriend and I were living with her ex-boyfriend and his new love. The other couple was both bisexual. My girlfriend and I were both straight, but, living together, we shared everything. That's where I discovered how special it is to bond with this other man, who I was not having sex with, but sharing the lovemaking with what was his partner, as well as my partner. Later, we had others come by who were interested in playing with one or another of us, and, chemistry being what it is, sometimes you just feel like being on the sidelines, cheering your team on, LOL. Seriously, in a community of more than a few people, I feel there are going to be people that, for one reason or another, don't have sex. However, there should be a strong bond on an emotional level. My feelings about children are that a kibbutz is the absolute best way to raise a child, as children provide a special energy to the community, and, as children are taught, so they will teach (hopefully)."

I find the above passage remarkable. We see that the relationships that are forged among the males need not be sexual in order to be intimate. Rather than enmity and jealousy between or among men who are lovers of the same woman or women, that situation can bring about profound closeness and friendship, a feeling of sharing something precious.

We can extend this feeling of camaraderie to include our economic relationships. Our lovers and their lovers can also be those with whom we share cooperative ventures. When those who we love either as dear friends or lovers are those with whom we share the responsibility for our common livelihood, our bonds are reinforced.

If the men who are lovers of the same woman or women are close friends based, in part, on that commonality and they are also members of the same cooperative economic ventures, then our present problems of paternity, including inheritance laws, that are based on greed, ego, jealousy and possessiveness of women, children and property will become passé.

All of the men, as well as all of the women, in Polyamorous communes will think of all of the children in those communes as belonging to the entire community and children will be thought of as being yours, mine and ours. This is true despite the fact that it is highly unlikely that everyone in the commune will be lovers, as the author of the passage above states. Human nature being what it is, we do not all fall in love with everyone, are not sexually attracted to everyone and do not wish to be sexually intimate with everyone. Sex will always be very personal and quite exclusive. In the case of Polyamory, the exclusivity involves a few people based on mutual love and desire, rather than one mate.

Communes based on "group marriage" involving all the members are not likely to be stable. Past attempts at "group marriage" have failed.

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel

Bisexuality, Polyamory, Fuzzy Logic & Slippery Slopes

Not everything that is alternative is good, acceptable, valuable, an improvement, progressive, worthy of emulation, worthy of adoption, noble, desirable and/or salubrious. Not only should female Bisexuality and Polyamory not be subsumed under the GLT BDSM rubric, they are more inimical to female Bisexuality and Polyamory than is heterosexual monogamy.
A general confusion is prevalent nowadays due to logical fuzziness. It goes like this: If I accept a lifestyle that is different than the way I live, I must accept any and all lifestyles that are different than the way I live.
What we used to call good old fashioned common sense has fallen by the wayside.
It is for this reason that I say, and reiterate, that as a Bisexual and Polyamorous woman, I refuse to allow anyone to push me down the GLT BDSM slippery slope.
Like heterosexuality, homosexuality is the blocking off of half of Humankind to be intimate with. How can I accept either heterosexuality or homosexuality as full and healthy expressions of Human sexuality?
Transsexuals are people who have serious physical defects, either congenital or assumed or both. We are required to be understanding and compassionate, but this does not require accepting transsexuals as normal or their sexuality on par with that of bisexuals who are not in possession of primary and secondary sexual characteristics of both sexes. Most certainly, they cannot influence the sexuality of the physically normal and healthy majority.
I simply cannot accept BDSM as normal forms of Human sexuality. If I reject bondage, domination, sadism and the acceptance of slavery in the political and socio-economic spheres, how can I accept them as healthy forms of the expression of love and intimacy? In my piece "Are BDSM and Anarchy Incongruous?" (See my POLYAMORY ISRAEL site, which is on the following URL: I demonstrated that BDSM is mimetic of societal perversions, characterized by bondage, domination, submission and the willingness to allow oneself to be enslaved. Therefore, anarchists, indeed all who maximize the conditions in society that allow us to express that which is sublime in our Humanity, are enjoined to go against the tide of "Political Correctness" and call those sexualities exactly what they are – destructive and self-destructive aberrations and perversions. I realize that I will alienate people with that statement, but I must speak what, at this juncture in my life, appears to me to be the truth.

A perfect example of pushing people down the slippery slope occurred at the movie awards this year. "Brokeback Mountain" was lauded for how it handled the subject matter it portrayed, the love of two men, including the sexual expression their love took on. So, the movie Transamerica hitches a ride too. Can no one see the difference between two men loving one another and someone who wishes to have his genitals surgically removed and turned into what looks like woman on the outside? Our ability to discern critical differences between and among situations is being systematically destroyed by bombarding us with the increasingly weird. Of course, it is increasingly forbidden to call the weird weird.Being open-minded is one thing. Having our brains spilling all over the floor because we are being bashed over the head with the demand that we accept everything as morally equal, of equal import, of equal contribution to our well-being is quite another matter.As a woman who is Bisexual and Polyamorous, this issue is near and dear to my heart and I feel it is essential to clarify the confusions. Being BiPoly requires a lot of common sense to be done wisely and well. It can, and has been, easily be sullied. Being BiPoly, I am expected to accept the entire GLT BDSM gamut. Bisexuality, as we have said, is usually subsumed thus: GLBT, that is, under all that which is not heterosexual. Gay men, lesbians, transsexuals of all types and people in the BDSM subculture are all surprised and very hurt that I don't lend my support to them, don't call myself "queer" along with them, do not wish to be associated with them and think that they, along with the monogamous heterosexuals are all living a partial, compromised sexuality at best, a revolting perversion at worst.

Not only do I not want to be associated with the GLT BDSMers, they are even more inimical to what I am trying to do than are the heterosexual monogamists.

I recently received an e-mail from a man who likes to be tied up and dominated telling me that I'm "hypocritical". It is one of many similar responses to my writing that I have received from people who define themselves as G, L,T, B,D,S and/or M. I have routinely been labeled "arrogant", "illogical", and "narrow-minded" as well.

If I were to endorse those lifestyles as being on a par with Bisexuality I would, without further investigation into my character or testing of my acumen, be congratulated by those same people for my egalitarian open-mindedness, incisive logic and consistency. In other words, their compliments are as baseless as are their insults and neither are of any concern to me whatsoever. It is astounding that the employment of less than ten highly emotionally-charged buzz words can bring most people into line.

Sometimes, in the case of extreme miscreants double, triple and even quadruple "whammies" are delivered in order to fell an independent thinker. "You're "illogical" (thus undermining the person's faith in his or her to think), "arrogant" (thus isolated) and a "hypocrite" (this insult says not only that one is morally reprehensible, but also reinforces the befuddled message that "illogical" broadcast). This triple shot is usual lethal. If not, the moniker "troll" may be added to the cocktail.

The next step is to feign uproarious laughter at the person. The jokes employ sarcasm, and they verily fall over one another trying to outdo one another in "cleverly sarcastic" ridicule. Most people do not like to be ridiculed and find it humiliating enough to capitulate and modify their stance.

Finally, the dissenter is labeled "insane". Most people are terribly afraid of being thought insane and this technique brings many into line. I, for one, have no reservations about being called "insane" by people who enjoy any of the activities listed on the following site: I am particularly amused by the irony of people who enjoy being strapped into straight jackets calling me "insane" when I call their practices what they are. Those who enjoy penis and testicle torture (receiving or giving) run a close second in making themselves absolutely ridiculous calling someone else's sanity into question. The ugly list goes on.

Frustration and dread are aroused in those who think formulaically and in accordance with any given school of those if someone does not surrender or capitulate after all these methods of behavior control are tried. If after these methods are employed the person still persists in voicing his or her opinions, the general consensus is that they are not dealing with a normal Human being and so need not take the thoughts of the non-Human species into account at all.

I am not one of those who can be daunted by social pressure. I am impervious to social pressure and will continue to write the truth as I see it.

I'm not hypocritical at all. I have the courage to tell it like it is and not get pushed down the slippery slope of accepting every alternative lifestyle because I live a sexual lifestyle that is not (yet) the norm.

I am profoundly dismayed that the bizarre, degenerate, depraved and perverse are becoming the mainstream and heaven help you if you employ those terms to describe the phenomena. You will be called a "neo-Con" (by those who think that neo-Con is the American equivalent of neo-Nazi and every conservative or Republican is a neo-Con) and/or a "religious fanatic", or "fundie".

Compare the number of times you have heard the following terms and phrases during the last month: "arrogant", "illogical" (for those who are clearly more intelligent than the average, otherwise "stupid" is used), "narrow-minded", "neo-Con", "religious fanatic" with the number of times you have heard the following terms employed: "modest", "humble", "wise", "self-effacing", "common sense".
I wrote the following to a man who wrote me that he enjoys being a "sub":

Wanting to be beaten, electrocuted, fettered, pierced, humiliated, tied up and otherwise have someone in power over you or hurt you is aberrant in the extreme and the result of having been exposed repeatedly to violence. It is in no wise normal. It perpetuates violence in society and confuses violence with love and intimacy in one's close relationships. In other words, it is a sexual perversion the provenance of which is societal perversion. BiPoly, in contradistinction, is the most salubrious sexual expression. It is the natural state. It can bring about only emancipation and good, not harm either in one's personal life or in the societal sphere.

There has to be a more biologically and socially responsible, more life-furthering and generally loving reason to adopt a sexuality than "I enjoy". "I enjoy" is a reason to choose one flavor of jelly bean over another. It is not a reason to adopt a sexuality. The topic here is sex - the most intimate expression of Human beings and that which allows the unfolding of the generation, not frivolities that may be engaged in or not depending solely upon whether one enjoys it or not.

Let us take eating as an example. I enjoy chocolate pudding, sour cream and potato chips much more than I do salad. What would become of me if I ate chocolate pudding, sour cream and potato chips because I enjoy them? I would rapidly fall into a pathological state, be a miserable Human being and be useless to others.

BiPoly, in allowing for a greater expression of genuine love and mutual responsibility serves the unfolding of the generations and Human society, as well as personal well-being. It is also clear how GLT BDSM do not at all and that monogamous heterosexuality brings it about only very partially and imperfectly.

Let my position be abundantly clear. I do not consider heterosexual monogamy, being homosexual (male or female) and most certainly not transsexual as being on par with being Bisexual and Polyamorous. None of the above-named sexualities can offer Humanity what Bisexual Polyamory can. As far as the BDSMers, I consider them with compassion, having been severely damaged by the pervasive violence in society. Recently I saw and advertisement by a Dom looking for a sub who agrees to be chained to his bed at night and to the wall during the day. The chain, he assures the applicant, will be long enough for her to do his housecleaning, but not to escape if she changes her mind later. Another advertisement comes from yet another Dom looking for a sub from the ages of 18-35 with lovely feet. He wants to bite her toe off. Of course, there are ads that issue from subs for Masters. One such advertisement reads: "I am a 23 submissive slut looking for a Master. I will do absolutely anything you demand and I love being used and abused." Subs are often referred to as slave/sluts. All of their protestations that outsiders do not understand them and that they are doing the quite normal and harmless need not be taken seriously at all. These most certainly cannot be considered a normal Human sexual model and no revisions of our thought about Bisexuality and Polyamory should employ them as examples or models of what is healthy for the mainstream or representative in any way. Though they claim to be part of the "Polyamory community", their practices constitute a pathetically degraded ersatz Polyamory and it would be wise to disavow them entirely as we go about our business of finding expressions of BiPoly that are fit for normal, healthy Human beings.

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Are BDSM and Anarchy Incongruent?

Please see my Mystical Anarchy site:
MultiOmni OmniAmorists

My friend, Richard May, who is so brilliant that he leaves me gobsmacked and awestruck, is also one of the kindest and funniest people I know.

He wrote the following good-natured take-off on some of my writings. I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. It is reposted here with his express, written permission. He has requested that I mention that he is neither pro or anti-Polyamory. The piece was only written in fun.

As a OmniAmorist and a MultiOmni I have little sympathy for you straightlaced uptight BiPolyAmorists, who whine about a lack of societal acceptance.

We OmniAmorists who are MultiOmni have a lack ofacceptance by the very laws of physics! Moreover, you hidebound orthodox BiPolyAmorists are only interested in the macrolevel of phenomena. We go after the delicious subquantum phenomena too and bonding by strong and weak forces, not handfasting or marriage! Young juicy neutrinos and tight little photons are not as grave as gravitons. You "Bi"s are so straight. Have you ever felt the exquisite sensation of the annihlation of matter and antimatter or listened to the sounds of release of Hawking radiation, as your soul penetrates a black hole? You never have to deal with wave-particle duality or the Heisenburg uncertainty principle in your so-called PolyAmory. You don't have a clue what it's like to get a juicy young neutrino in bed only to discover that when you discover her location in spacetime, you don't know how fast she's moving or ... Damn that Heisenburg! You go to bed with a gamma wave and afterward she's a particle of different charm and spin, not to mention 'color', even in the quantum world. Her charm can make your head spin. And Pauli was no Poly with his exclusive "exclusion principle"! Try having a quantum non-local relationship with a succulent mu meson only to find her decaying into an entire family of bizarre vibrating Strings. (Incidentally, were the vibrating membranes of M-theory circumcized on the eight day? Is the Multiverse, itself, Jewish?) You get strung along by String Theory and how do you compete with the Big Bang? Try competing with the Big Bang in bed! I LOVE every wave-particle in the quantum foam, just as long as the feeling lasts beyond spacetime, or until my attention wanders, which ever comes first, true objective love. But what about objective lust, where is it to be found? So many warps in the spacetime continuum, vibrating Strings playing the music of Hermes and Pythagoras, as juicy wavicles dance seductively, and so few views from eternity.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Polyamorists Wanna Get Married Too

Now that marriage among gays is becoming legal in country after country, Polyamorists wish to get on the bandwagon too. Recently a civil marriage was performed for a man and the two women he loves in the Netherlands. They are now man and wives. Mazel tov!

As a BiPoly this subject is near and dear to my heart.

The irony of the insistence on the part of gays and Polyamorists to marry never ceases to amaze me (read that causes me chagrin).

Marriage has proven itself to be an untenable institution that causes widespread misery.

Why emulate it? Why perpetuate it?

Evidently, gays and Polyamorists are stuck in the mindset that only marriage is official, lawful, a total commitment, stable and fully recognized by society. Is there a tinge of seeking religious sanction for their relationships as well?

That the Polyamorous wish to express the establishment of their relationships somehow officially can be understood. But why marriage?

I think an adaptation of the old Celtic institution Hand Fasting makes far more sense than marriage for everyone, not only gays and the Polyamorous, i.e., renewable vows to remain together for as long as love lasts. The children of dissolved alliances are not considered "kids of broken homes" or regarded as disadvantaged socially in any way. Neither should the children of people who no longer wish to be partners be disadvantaged economically. Clearly, a society in which there is common wealth would preclude the possibility that children of dissolved relationships would suffer economically.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Pollies – A Lesson, Not Just A Symbol

One day I went to a petting zoo wherein there were many species ofbirds. I looked at them in wonder as I realized that the bird Kingdom is the living embodiment of the cosmic play on the sublime and the ridiculous.

I saw that some species of birds are far on the sublime end, while others are far on the ridiculous-looking end and most combined both to one extent or the other.

Many great Kingdoms are like that. Polyamory is one of them.

I tend to resonate with the sublime in Polyamory, that is, the still more multifarious unfolding of the generations it can yield; the far deeper ability to express love it affords us; the opportunity to overcome our baser emotions and the emancipation it holds out to us.

Polyamory can, and indeed has, been expropriated by those who make it ridiculous - nothing more than just another fetish, just another perversion. They are currently the majority of people who practice Polyamory.

The base is nothing other than the noble being but into practice bythose not Spiritually/Morally prepared to apprehend the sublime and respond to it with sacred awe.

I think that Polyamory is worth the effort required to redeem itfrom those who debase it and who alienate the just plain folks whoare now suffering in unsatisfying relationships who might benefit from what Polyamory, responsibly and nobly practiced, has to offer.

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel

Don't Call Me Queer!

I cringe in embarrassment and discomfort when people, getting a hernia straining to be PC, refer to all those who are not heterosexual, monogamists who only have sex in the missionary position as "queer"(I feel a cringe coming on right now). That goes for the straights, the gays and "alternatives" alike.

I am not queer. I am a magnificently idiosyncratic personality, to be sure, but that has nothing to do with my sexual orientation. That has to do with me being Doreen.

As for my sexual orientation: I am Bisexual and Polyamorous. That is unusual in our societies in our time, but it is not queer.

The very last thing in the world that I am aiming for is for the BiPolyway of life to be considered the habitation of the "queerdos" ofsociety.

I am convinced that there will come a time when society-at-large will recognize that the Human sexual norm is Bisexuality and Polyamory. At such time those practices will be what the just plain folks do.

In the meantime I adjure you not degrade people, self-deprecate, or alienate straights by throwing the sobriquet "queer" around liberally.

Diamonds, as opposed to quartz, are rare, not queer.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation.

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel

Sunday, January 01, 2006

I'd very much appreciate input as to what you think about my understanding of the link between anarchy and polyamory as expressed below.

In unhealthy societies, marked by physical and emotional violence relationships are unhealthy because people's ability to love, receive love and express love are inhibited and stifled at best, crippled at worst.

As the mode of expression of love derives from a higher and more noble Spiritual/Moral source the likelihood that its expression will be healthy in a sick society is proportionately reduced.

The base is nothing other than the noble that is imperfectly expressed in a world too brutish and cruel to bear the sublimity.

Therefore, those who would practice true polyamory, that is the giving and receiving of profound and intimate love from as many people as one can, are also driven by the desire to make the world generally better. They are driven by the desire to create the conditions within which that love can live.

All manners of emancipation must exist together. Polyamory cannot be fully expressed without anarchy. It's something like taking the B complex of Vitamins; you can't just take one, you need the whole complex.

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel